Reaching For Need In The Draft Is ALWAYS A Mistake

Reaching and drafting for need go hand-in-hand. The reason why is because usually when a team reaches on a draft pick, they do it to fill a need. Sports teams reach every year in their drafts. Since it happens in the NFL more than any of the other major sports leagues, I'll just focus on them for this piece to keep things simple. Before I go any further, let me give you my definition of reaching:

reach- when you draft a player ahead of where they should be drafted.

In other words, that player's talent wasn't worth the value of the draft pick used to select him and he would have been available at a later spot. Usually desperation, fear, or ego are the main motivators for teams drafting a player too high to fill a pressing need. There are 2 types of teams that draft for need: one that's poorly run and one that has a gaping hole at a premium position. From my observation, reaching for need is DANGEROUS and very rarely seems to work out.

As a matter of fact, I feel like drafting for need is football suicide. Often when a team reaches and takes a player higher than they are projected to go, they miss out on a better prospect that was available. These misses get magnified because the decision maker's focus was so narrow. They ignored other players with star potential at other positions for the sake of a short term fix. Let me also point out that the same needs you have on draft day might not be the same needs you have when you break training camp and get ready for your first game. As violent as the NFL is, any position can become a need on any given play.

I'm all for drafting the best player available. Even if a player doesn't fill a need, drafting him can still help your team. Going BPA can make a great strength even stronger or turn something mediocre into a great strength. Drafting for need can turn something you are terrible at into a mediocre strength. There's also the fact that the prospect you reached on to fill a need might not be developed enough to fill that need right away. You never want to waste the value of a draft spot because of a perceived roster hole.

The most common logic among Cowboys fans in recent years has been, "Our offense is already good enough. We need defense." The defense has so many holes in it that by the time it gets fixed it'll be time to rebuild the offense. In fact, the Cowboys need defense every year. We spend more draft picks on defense in every draft and STILL need defense. I'm always looking for the defensive players that they draft and barely see any of them on the field, and the ones I do see are playing, but not making much of an impact. It's the same old problem every year.

Reaching or drafting for need usually results in getting a substandard player. Most of the times the Cowboys have done it, like when we drafted Shante Carver, Greg Ellis, Ebeneezer Ekuban, and Taco Charlton, the administration graded on a curve and talked themselves into believing that the grade was close enough. At the end of the day, you should NOT have to talk yourself into a guy. If you have to talk yourself into a prospect, you are definitely making a mistake if you draft him.

I'm well aware of how many holes the Cowboys have on defense and how they were historically bad this past season. Because they have so many holes on that side of the ball, it would be easy for the front office to get fixated on a defensive player with the 10th overall pick in this year's draft. The problem with that is the 2021 draft class being so thin on defensive players at the top. In my opinion, the defensive class as a whole is not all that great. But if the Cowboys went defense with their first pick, I wouldn't be upset as long as that player is the BPA. 

Before I get into my thoughts on how the Cowboys should approach this year's draft here are my 2 biggest cardinal sins of drafting:

Reaching/Drafting For Need: Again, I combine both of these things because a reach usually is a need pick. To me, reaching for a player in the draft has the same effect as overpaying a free agent, whether it's one of your own or one from another team. Either way, you eventually end up having "buyer's remorse" in both situations because the player doesn't perform up to the standards of his draft status/contract. Every time you go for need, you will be angry with yourself, especially if you draft that player too high.

Putting Limits On The Talent At A Position: This goes under the concept of taking the best player available in the draft. I can't speak for anybody else, but if the best player on my draft board plays a position that's well-stocked, guess what? I'm picking him anyway. It's all about accumulating talent and giving yourself flexibility. Besides, you can never have too many great players at one position. You also have to create competition at every position. Because if you don't, human nature can take over and players can get complacent and think they don't have to work as hard, which is another blog in itself.

As far as the 2021 NFL Draft goes, at least in the 1st round, the Cowboys' brain trust can't let themselves get caught up in reaching for a need. It usually doesn't end well for teams when they pass on a better player to check a box. Also, with so many players having similar grades and being closer in talent levels later in the draft, there is too muck risk in reaching at the top. Besides, if the player filling the need was really worth picking in the first place, the team wouldn't need to reach because he would already have a grade that's worthy of that draft slot.

With the 10th pick in the 1st round, the Cowboys are in a good position. From that spot, they have the ability to see how the draft board starts to fall, which prospects might start sliding, and which teams behind them might be looking to trade up. I know the "we need defense" crowd doesn't want to hear this, but if the Cowboys stay at 10, they have to be ready to take the highest rated prospect on their board......even if it is an offensive player. Defense very well could be the priority with the No. 10 pick, but it should NOT take precedence over drafting the best player available.

Before I go any further, let me admit that I do have my preference for who I want the Cowboys to draft with their first pick. I would like either Penei Sewell, Rashawn Slater, or Kyle Pitts. I would be ecstatic to hear one of their names called. But let's not get it twisted, this IS NOT my personal campaign for the team to draft one of these guys. What I am saying is that if one of them falls to No. 10, they will be the best player available. If that happens to be the case, you take them and figure out the rest later.

If we get one of those tackles, it would be insurance for the offensive line in case one of our incumbent starters went down. Tyron Smith is going into his 11th season and coming off of neck surgery. He also has had back issues for several years and hasn't played a full season since 2015. La'el Collins missed all of last season after having hip surgery. It's been said that his hip is didn't have any cartilage in it, that it's bone on bone. Whether that's true or not, he did have a hip injury that was serious enough to require surgery and keep him out for the season. It doesn't bode well for his future.

Tyron Smith and La'el Collins are one of the better tackle tandems in the NFL when healthy, but the "when healthy" is used to describe the Cowboys' offensive line situation as a whole. Now when you factor in the back issues that Zack Martin has been dealing with the last couple of years, you have an aging O-line with injuries to parts of the body that are crucial to the performance of an offensive lineman. Their necks, backs, and hips will be involved in every single play. Even if you have a good feeling about them holding up this year, O-line SHOULD NOT be ignored.

I personally don't trust either one of our tackles to stay healthy for the season. Back issues don't get better as you get older, and when you compound them with a neck injury, it makes the situation that much worse. A hip with bones grinding against each other sounds like a career-threatening issue to me. I would love to be wrong about both of these guys and have them for the whole season. If it works out that way, that would be great, and we could put Sewell/Slater at guard for the time being. The good thing about this year's draft is that there are about 10 tackles worthy of being picked in the first 3 rounds if we don't get one of those 2 guys.

The offensive line started their decline when Travis Fredrick retired last year. Then the decline accelerated with La'el Collins having a hip surgery that ended his season before it got started. Then came Tyron Smith's neck issues that kept him out of all but 2 games, eventually leading to surgery. Then Zack Martin had an assortment of injuries (back, concussion, calf strain) that caused him to miss significant time. Here's one more reason why I would like to have one of those tackles: After committing to our quarterback long-term with a new contract, I would like to protect that investment.

Even though the Cowboys are strong at wide receiver and solid at tight end, they still shouldn't shy away from drafting Kyle Pitts, or maybe even Jaylen Waddle if either one of them are the best player available on their board. Pitts is considered a "unicorn" and a generational talent at TE, and Waddle has a gear that the other receivers in this draft class don't have. His speed is just different. A great player at a position of lesser need is better than a bust at a position of need. It's all about "keeping your strength strong". 

Also, adding one of those guys to your offense would give you even more roster flexibility with the possibility of losing Michael Gallup in free agency in 2022, as well as the ability to cut ties with Amari Cooper if they see fit. Bottom line, the Cowboys shouldn't gamble on a player they don't fully believe in if a player they have ranked higher falls to them. We also shouldn't lose sight of the fact that teams draft players for what they can do in the future, not just as rookies. It might be tough for Pitts or Waddle to have much of an impact in Year 1 because of how the current roster is built, but in the following 2 years when Gallup or Dalton Schultz's contracts are up, more opportunities would open up for them.

Let me put it to you another way: Being on the clock with the No. 10 pick, your offensive line has been having trouble staying healthy in recent years, and you have a blue chip offensive lineman in Penei Sewell, widely considered the top lineman in the draft, fall in your lap. Or, you already have solid players on your team at tight end, but a potential all-time great in Kyle Pitts slides to No. 10. If either one of these situations played out, why would you pass on the blue chip talent to take a lesser talent at a position of need? This is where franchises can get themselves in a lot of trouble. If you go by who the best player is on your board at that time and not worry about need or depth at a position, it usually works out well for you.

The draft is an imperfect science, and the process is already hard enough. Reaching with a pick and hoping you are right only compounds the problem. There is nothing worse than knowing who you could have had, it will make you sick. If you reach on a player and he turns out to be awful, it looks even worse when you see who you could have gotten instead. It makes it that much worse if you pass on a blue chip player. In fact, it could turn out to be a generational mistake for your franchise.

To an owner or a GM, a draft bust means putting millions of dollars into a paper shredder. To a fan, it just means having to wait another year for a chance to draft a player that could help their favorite team. It might seem easy from the outside, but there is so much more that goes into these draft choices than the average fan will ever know. But here's one thing that will never change: Having a special player trumps having a good player at a position of need.

Tim Duncan - A Basketball Unicorn (Part 1)

Disclaimer: A major factor in my motivation for writing this blog is that I feel more people should know that Tim Duncan, especially at his best, could hold his own with ANY player in the history of basketball. When he was at the height of his powers and the most feared player in basketball, his detractors always tried to marginalize him to any role they could to make it easier for them to downplay his dominance.

Not many people will debate that TD is one of the greatest players ever, but all the arguments I've heard to discredit him and marginalize his achievements have been mind-numbing. Because different people value different things in discussions on all-time player rankings, as time passes people start becoming misinformed on certain players' impacts in the NBA's history. Easily, the player who immediately comes to mind that's victimized by revisionist history, misinformation, or rhetoric that's completely based in fallacy is Tim Duncan.

None of the criticisms against TD are hard fact arguments. They serve as examples of how there is a disconnect between how he's valued by his peers and by basketball fans and the media. It's also the easiest way to dismiss a lot of context and dumb down discussions. Even though I'm always ready to fact check people that either undersell TD or don't get their facts right when they talk about him, a lot of times I keep what I know to myself.

Any Tim Duncan fact that I blog, post on social media, or speak about out loud, I can back it up AND point you in the right direction if you want to research it for yourself. I'm also confident in my ability to defend my opinions without letting being a fan cloud my judgment. Bottom line, I'm here to educate, not push narratives. If I'm wrong, I'll gladly admit it. 

If Tim Duncan spent his career in either Los Angeles, New York, or Boston, he would have been seen as the basketball unicorn that he is and also as a consensus top 5 all-time player. I'm well aware that all-time rankings are subjective, but TD is worthy of being in the pantheon of basketball's all-time greats and more than deserves to be mentioned among the very best of the best without it being seen as a joke.

For starters, let me just say that there is no clear-cut GOAT in basketball. Every candidate for that title has flaws and holes in their resumes that you can point out. It's funny how there are certain "names" that the media feels obligated to put above Tim Duncan on their all-time lists, yet if you ask most experts, they would take him over Magic Johnson or Larry Bird to start a franchise with. 

Most of the media and casual fans begrudgingly put Tim Duncan in the bottom half of the top 10 in their all-time rankings. These people fail to see that TD dominated every aspect of the game pertaining to his position, while some of the guys they rank ahead of him didn't. There are also guys ranked ahead of TD that had shorter careers, better teammates, and the same amount or less championships. To me, there's NO WAY you can rank TD lower than No. 5 all-time. If you take nostalgia and sentimentality out of the conversation, you can't name 5 players with better credentials than him.

Now here are 3 things that I believe make Tim Duncan a basketball unicorn:

*Abilities

Tim Duncan was an extremely intelligent, adaptive, and highly skilled basketball player. He also wasn't a traditional big man when he came into the NBA. He was taller than a traditional power forward, more quick and mobile than a traditional big man, and also more athletic and fit than a traditional big man. Part of what made TD so good was that he also shot better and drove to the basket better than a traditional big man.

TD was a great midrange shooter, and could have likely become a good/great 3-point shooter if he wanted to. Young/prime TD could get any shot he wanted. If you play up on him, he was quick enough to beat you off the step. If you give him space, his signature bank shot was automatic. Think Anthony Davis with elite footwork along with strong post moves and the ability to back down guys. That's basically what Tim Duncan was. The same way Stephen Curry creates gravity on the perimeter, TD created gravity from the low post, which sets up shooters for open 3-pointers.

Along with having a dominant post game, TD was a great ballhandler for a man his size, and was also a very underrated passer. He was a great passer out of double teams, and the only other player that could ever match his outlet passing skills was Wes Unseld. Because of TD's passing abilities, he often led the Spurs in assists. He also excelled at all the things that didn't show up on stat sheets.

For all the fuss that's made about scoring, people tend to forget about the other aspects that are critical for an offense to function. Tim Duncan was also great off the ball and could get himself some easy baskets by cutting and rolling to the basket. He always hedged the right distance on pick-and-rolls, filled the lane on the break, and also set great screens. You don't see too many superstars focus on those things. TD was pretty much a superstar with a role player mentality.

TD also used his athleticism, physicality, big frame, freakishly long arms, and textbook technique to become an all-time great rebounder. Those same tools also helped him to be a GOAT-level defender. Not only was he an elite rim protector, but TD was also quick and athletic enough to guard perimeter players. He also knew the tendencies of every single player he defended, which is why he was so feared in the paint. In fact, many of TD's blocks were the result of  below the basket anticipation.

TD's defense wasn't fully appreciated. He anchored some historic defenses throughout his career, and the fact that he never won a Defensive Player Of The Year award is CRIMINAL. How about this for perspective? TD played 19 years of All-NBA level defense and only averaged 2.4 fouls per game for his career. The one thing that never changed from Year 1 to Year 19 was him being an active defender that must ALWAYS be accounted for. No other player in basketball history was as good defensively as TD for as long as he was.

*GOAT Franchise Player

How can Tim Duncan not be the greatest franchise player of all-time? Let me make it clear that calling him the GOAT franchise player IS NOT the same as calling him the singular greatest basketball player ever. To me, there is no single greatest player ever, but there is a greatest franchise centerpiece. Those are 2 entirely different things. If your goal is to get the ultimate "team" guy that will carry you to 50+ wins for 2 decades and keep you in the mix for a championship every year, then TD is your guy.

The single biggest reason that Tim Duncan is the GOAT franchise centerpiece is because he, more than any player, provided the highest assurance of lasting excellence and championship contention if you build around him while making the GM's job easier than with other players that qualify as legendary centerpieces. TD is the only guy who instantly makes your team a contender from Day 1 and keep you in contention for 20 years, no matter what supporting cast you put around him.

What exactly do you get from Tim Duncan as your franchise player? For starters, you get the ultimate 2-way superstar and possibly the most flexible star player of all-time. For example, if the Spurs needed him to put up a 30-point, 20-rebound game to win, he did it. If Tony Parker or Manu Ginobili had it going, he would gladly take a backseat on offense and let them shine and then dominate the game defensively. With TD it was all about whatever it took for his team to win.

Also with TD, you get a guy who will be the best player in the NBA (as early as Year 2) for arguably a decade, capable of putting the team on his back and carrying them to multiple championships, then being an elite 2-way player for the second decade of his career and the best player on a championship team in Year 17. You also have no drama or diva behavior, no laziness, no off-court issues, or hatred by teammates for his ego, nor do you have a career shortened by injuries. Who else gives you all of that?

What also speaks volumes about Tim Duncan's greatness as a centerpiece is that the Spurs were drafting in the high 20's every year. It's not easy to build a team that way. Most of the recent championship teams got there with massive signings of Hall Of Fame-caliber free agents, lots of early round draft picks that panned out, or both of those things. It's impossible to tank when you have a player of TD's caliber on your team.

Unfortunately, people want to penalize TD for his unbelievably unselfish nature. His leadership skills helped teammates become All-Stars and ultimately Hall Of Famers themselves. He deferred to teammates offensively when they had a hot hand. He got along with his head coach and stuck with him for years, ultimately trusting the process in order for the Spurs to maximize their success. He didn't retire in the middle of his career, never asked for a trade, nor did he go to management and tell them to fire the head coach. Again, with Tim Duncan it was team over everything.

*Greatest Winner Of His Generation

From the time Tim Duncan first stepped on an NBA court up until the last game he played, he was on a team competing for a championship. His dominance spanned 2 decades. He was a transcendent winner. For starters, in all 19 of his seasons the Spurs won 50+ games or what would prorate out to 50 games. That's also 19 straight seasons with a winning percentage above 60%. 

The Spurs had a 1072-438 record and .710 win percentage during Tim Duncan's tenure with them, which is the best stretch in NBA history. It was also the best 19-year stretch among the 4 major pro sports leagues, as well as the most successful period in the history of North American pro sports. The Spurs are also the only team in the NBA over that span to not miss the playoffs.

The team also won 35 of the 48 (73%) playoff series that TD participated in. He also beat 18 different teams in the NBA playoffs, which is something no other player in history has ever done. TD also has a winning head-to-head record against every single franchise in the NBA, regular season AND playoffs, and nobody else was closer than 8 games under .500 during that time frame.

Of the 3 players in NBA history that won 1,000 regular season games, Tim Duncan is the only one to do it with 1 team. Also, the Spurs only lost in the first round of the playoffs ONCE with a healthy TD on the floor - in an extremely tough Western Conference, and that didn't happen until Year 18. It's flat out amazing how a guy can play 19 years as a starter and make the playoffs every single year, let alone his team being a championship contender every year.

A strong case can be made for Tim Duncan being the GOAT No. 1 pick with the return on investment he was able to produce. He brought them 5 championships, along with that ridiculous regular season winning percentage. It was easy for Spurs fans to take for granted how hard it is for an NBA team to get 50 wins year in and year out. Largely because of TD, they made it look so easy.

People are in no rush to realize that Tim Duncan was much greater than he gets credit for. If you just base it on his resume/credentials alone, he clearly deserves to be in the pantheon of basketball players and be recognized as one of the 5 greatest players ever. I don't think you'll find more than 4 players at ANY period in time, from the creation of the NBA to the establishment of the ABA, that have a better track record than TD. Other than his accomplishments, here are the factors that need to be considered:

*He was the best player at his position during his era.

*He is the consensus GOAT at his position.

*He was an impact player on both ends of the court.

*He was the leader/reason for his team's success.

*He won multiple championships.

*He won championships with different player combinations.

*His team made the playoffs in each of his seasons in the NBA.

*He won Rookie Of The Year.

*He was an All-Star as a rookie.

*He was an All-NBA First Team selection as a rookie.

*He was a multiple-time regular season MVP winner.

*He was a multiple-time NBA Finals MVP winner.

*He had unmatched intangibles.

*He had a legendary will to win.

*He could always be counted on to produce in crunch time.

When you factor in all the elements that go into being a pantheon player (championships, accolades, intangibles, etc.), Tim Duncan checks all the boxes. The deeper you get into the list of these elements, the number of players that fit all of the criteria gets even smaller. Again, TD can go toe-to-toe with any all-time great with his resume, but he's defined most by numbers that are tied to team accomplishments. Here is a list of some of his accomplishments that reflect the unmatched consistency and 2-way dominance over the course of his career:

*Had a 20+ PER (Player Efficiency Rating) in each of his first 18 seasons. (NBA Record)

*Only player in NBA history with 15 All-Star selections, 15 All-NBA selections, and 15 All-Defensive selections.

*Only player in NBA history to be selected to an All-NBA and All-Defensive team in his first 13 seasons.

*Only player in NBA history with 100 offensive win shares and 100 defensive win shares.

*Only player in NBA history to win 1,000 games with 1 team.

*One of only 2 players in NBA history with 25,000 points, 15,000 rebounds, and 3,000 blocks.

*Only player in NBA history with 5,000 points, 2,500 rebounds, and 500 blocks in the playoffs.

*Only player in NBA history to start on an NBA championship team in 3 different decades.

*Only player in NBA history to win a championship in the 1990's, 2000's, and 2010's.

*His 19 seasons with the Spurs are the most ever for a No. 1 pick with the team that drafted him.

Because Tim Duncan had such a long and successful career, there is one important thing that people either don't realize or eventually forget: he played most of his career on 1 good leg. Having a physical disadvantage that kept him from reaching his true potential and still having the career he had only enhances his greatness in my eyes. This ABSOLUTELY has to be factored into the equation when you analyze TD's career and compare him to other all-time greats. Why? He was only at his best physically for the first 3 years of his career.

People are comparing the Tim Duncan of his last 16 years to the peaks of those other greats (on 2 good legs) without the benefit of being able to see him at the height of his powers with both legs being healthy while all of his physical tools are on full display. This is why I can't automatically agree when people say some of these all-time greats are better than TD. That's when I get accused of being biased. Maybe some of those guys were more physically talented than TD, but because of how important the entire package is, that's of limited value. It's also practically impossible to prove because of him only having 1 healthy leg.

Tim Duncan also doesn't get nearly enough credit for his longevity and ability to be great in any system. He won a championship in 3 different decades in different systems and with different players surrounding him. He was great in all of them and a rock no matter what situation he was in. TD won with another great big man and the Spurs playing totally through the frontcourt, he won as the sole superstar with a bunch of role players, he won meshing seamlessly with 2 other star players and no disputes about sharing the ball arising, and he won as a secondary option on a team that pushed the ball and played up-tempo pick-and-roll.

No matter what type of team you want to build, just insert Tim Duncan and you'll do a lot of winning. He also deserves credit for sacrificing and his part in creating the culture in San Antonio for the Spurs to have their unprecedented run of success. It wouldn't be a stretch to say that he brought more value to his team than any other No. 1 overall pick ever has. Here's what makes all of what TD accomplished so great: He did it all in San Antonio. When he first got to the NBA, the concept of a small market team winning an NBA championship was still foreign.

The reason why TD's success in San Antonio is such a big deal is because it takes more to do what he did than a superstar in a big market. There are limitations (spending power, free agent attraction) that come with playing for a small market. Along with all of those constraints, TD also had to deal with a historically stacked Western Conference. The fact that he survived it 6 times to make it to the NBA Finals with those constraints says a lot about his ability to elevate a team to greatness. The Spurs had never won a championship and were considered an also-ran before TD came along and brought them 5 trophies and season after season of contending. You could argue all day long about who was more athletic or more talented than Tim Duncan, but there has never been another player that single-handedly brought more success to a single team than him.

If you truly want to know more about what makes Tim Duncan a basketball unicorn, I go into much more detail in this book titled The Underappreciated Greatness Of Tim Duncan: 

LaMarcus Aldridge Appreciation

July 4, 2015 is a day that will always loom large in Spurs history. It was the day the Spurs signed LaMarcus Aldridge, the biggest free agent in franchise history. The Spurs have signed some big names in the past, but those players were nearing retirement. LA was the first ever big-name free agent to sign with the Spurs that had some prime years left. He's also the only big-name free agent to ever sign with the Spurs because they were his #1 choice. I will always appreciate him for it and will never forget it.

Here are the things I'll remember most about LaMarcus Aldridge in his 6 years with the Spurs: 

*Choosing the Spurs when he had other offers on the table

*Filling the All-Star big man void after Tim Duncan retired

*Keeping the Spurs afloat during one of the darkest times in recent history

*Carrying the Spurs to the playoffs in 2018 and 2019

*His contributions on back-to-back 60+ win Spurs teams

*His career-high 56-point game against the Thunder (1/10/19)

Signing LaMarcus Aldridge was as big as it can get for the Spurs. He is the best free agent pickup in franchise history, and in my opinion, the timing of his addition doesn't change the value he brought to the team. Even in the massive shadow cast by Tim Duncan, LA delivered on expectations in San Antonio, and the Spurs' failure to win a championship during LA's time with them is not his fault.

I can't help but feel bad for LaMarcus Aldridge not being able to get a championship in San Antonio. What better way to reward your biggest ever free agent catch? The reason I feel bad is because LA was robbed of a couple of opportunities for a ring due to injuries to Tim Duncan (2016) and Kawhi Leonard (2017), and another one when Kawhi sat out and ultimately forced his way off the team. If not for those things, I believe the Spurs would have won at least 1 championship during LA's tenure and his legacy would look a lot different.

Even without a championship, LaMarcus Aldridge still has his place in Spurs history. He was an All-Star in 3 of his first 4 years with the team, and even in the year he didn't make it he still had an All-Star caliber season. He was a major piece on a team that won 67 and 61 games in his first 2 seasons, including a trip to the Western Conference Finals, which the Spurs were up big in Game 1 on the road against an all-time great team until Kawhi got injured.

Besides being an integral part of a championship contender in his first 2 years with the Spurs, LaMarcus Aldridge's biggest contribution to the team was keeping the Spurs competitive and carrying them on his back through some of the most tumultuous times the franchise has ever faced. He kept the team relevant longer than they probably should have been. Without LA, the Spurs might have become a 20-win team after the Big 3 retired.

In my opinion, LaMarcus Aldridge played his best basketball with the Spurs from 2015-2019, with his peak being 2017-19, when he carried what should have been a lottery team to the playoffs to help them extend their playoff streak to 22 years in a row, which tied an NBA record. It would have been a completely different Spurs era if they didn't have LA. I would even say he's one of the top 10 performers the team has ever had.

Again, you can't help but feel bad for LA because he signed with the Spurs to be an All-Star running mate to Tim Duncan in the frontcourt and give the veteran nucleus a good shot at 1 last championship. Also, with Kawhi Leonard developing into a superstar, he and LA were setting up to be a formidable 1-2 punch that could keep the team in contention. Instead, LA ended up being the man to lead the Spurs through an unusual transition period.

All in all, it's hard to be upset about LA's tenure with the Spurs. Given that the team had legends retire and the team's franchise player forced his way out, LA did the best he could with what he had. He was forced into a role he wasn't supposed to have, and because of that I won't be too hard on him for the Spurs' playoff failures. They had a good thing going, with so many opportunities to make more history, and it was never supposed to end abruptly. Even though things didn't go as planned, I still believe that the LaMarcus Aldridge signing was a great acquisition for the Spurs, and I'm grateful for his contributions.

Spurs vs Bulls Hypothetical 1999 NBA Finals (My Opinion)

Disclaimer: This hypothetical is solely based on Michael Jordan's claims in The Last Dance documentary that the Bulls would have won their 7th championship in 1999 if they had stayed together. Since we can't go back in time, it's impossible to prove. All we know is that the Spurs are the team that actually won it that year. Most of the media personalities seem to side with MJ in his beliefs, but I personally don't agree with him. Yes, I'm a die hard Spurs fan, but in this hypothetical I'll do my best to be as logical as I can without letting being a fan cloud my judgment.

As always, I use FACTS to back up my claims. If you ever want to dispute any of the facts I present, I would be happy to point you in the right direction so you can do your research. This piece of writing is strictly MY OPINION, but an opinion that will be based on facts. I can't promise that readers won't feel a sense of partiality whenever they read what I write about my favorite teams/players, but the one thing I can promise is that it's based on what actually happened. In other words, you might not agree with the presentation of my narratives, but you WILL NOT find a lie in anything I write.


At the end of the series finale of The Last Dance, Michael Jordan made the claim that he felt like the Bulls could have won a 4th straight NBA championship in 1999, which would have been No. 7 for him and the Bulls franchise. He said that the team was robbed of the opportunity, and that they were entitled to defend what was theirs until somebody took it. I agree with MJ on both of those points. It's a shame that things had to end the way they did.

A Spurs/Bulls 1999 NBA Finals has been a hot topic in the sports world since The Last Dance, a 10-part documentary highlighting the 1997-98 Bulls championship team. I know for sure this matchup would have been highly rated. You had the Spurs Twin Towers of David Robinson and Tim Duncan, co-anchoring a historic defense, going up against a Bulls Big 3 of Michael Jordan, Scottie Pippen, and Dennis Rodman. Then you have the coaching battle between Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson. The big mistake I always see people make when they favor the Bulls in this hypothetical matchup is that they compare what the 1997-98 team did and dismissing the reality of what happened to the players after that season.

Before I get into how I think the series would play out, let me present you with the facts that support my logic:

*Michael Jordan severed a tendon in the index finger on his shooting hand with a faulty cigar cutter.
This happened in early January 1999 on a trip he took to the Bahamas. He had nerve damage that made it hard for him to palm a basketball. MJ needed surgery to fix the finger that would have sidelined him for 2 months if he decided to come back. But he said that by the time this happened he had already decided to retire, even though he didn't make it official until later in the offseason. MJ said in the documentary that he wouldn't have been messing around with a cigar cutter if he knew the team was being kept together.

*Scottie Pippen was coming off an injury-plagued season.
He had surgery on his left foot right before the start of the 1997-98 season that sidelined him for the Bulls' first 35 games. Then in the Eastern Conference Finals, Scottie injured his lower back and then aggravated it in Game 5 of the NBA Finals when he scored the Bulls' first basket of the game on a dunk. He had surgery on his back in the summer of 1998 and was never the same player. Scottie was still a high-end starter, but not the All-NBA player he was before those injuries.

*Scottie Pippen was highly upset about being underpaid for so long and wanted out of Chicago.
He was the 6th highest paid Bulls player and was determined to get a long-term deal done once his Bulls contract ran out. Michael Jordan rationalized that if Phil Jackson had committed to coming back, that he and Phil could have gotten everybody to come back on 1-year deals so they could try to win 1 more championship. I couldn't see a 33-year old Scottie Pippen, who was angry for years about being criminally underpaid with Jerry Krause refusing to renegotiate his contract, on the verge of getting the first big contract of his career, coming off a year where he missed just under half the season, coming off of back surgery, and didn't get along with the Bulls front office leaving money on the table to come back on a 1-year deal. Scottie finally got his money when he was traded to the Rockets.

*The 1997-98 Bulls were an older team and running on fumes.
They would be another year older in 1999, with their nucleus being in their mid to late 30's. Assuming they did stay together, at the time of the 1999 NBA Finals you would have a 36-year old Michael Jordan, 33-year old Scottie Pippen, and a 38-year old Dennis Rodman. To round out the starting lineup, you would have a 35-year old Ron Harper, and Luc Longley being the young one in the group at 30.

*There were other hungry teams on the rise.
The Pacers took the Bulls to 7 games in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals, where the Bulls escaped Game 7 with a 5-point win. The Pacers came back the next year and finished the season in a 3-way tie with the Heat and Magic for best record in the East. The Heat gave up the 2nd fewest points per game in the 1998-99 season and had a tandem of Alonzo Mourning (MVP runner-up) and Tim Hardaway. Zo would have given the Bulls front line fits. There was also the eventual conference champion Knicks, who weren't a true 8th seed. They upset the Heat in the 1st round and went on to eventually lose to the Spurs in the Finals. It's hard to imagine a Bulls team with Michael Jordan losing to the Heat or the Knicks, but seeing how the Pacers had them on the ropes in 1998 showed how much motivation teams had in dethroning them.

*The NBA squeezed a 50-game regular season into 90 days in 1999.
People look at the fact that the regular season was just 50 games and assume that would have given the Bulls an advantage because they were running on fumes. The season came after just 12 days for training camp, where rosters weren't even fully set because of free agency also going on at the time. Squeezing in 50 games in 90 days resulted in some instances where teams had 3 games in 3 nights, 3 in 4 nights, and plenty of back-to-backs. The quality of play suffered because there was little time to practice and players had to quickly work themselves back into shape. A grind like that would have been hell on the Bulls, especially since they played 58 playoff games over the previous 3 years. There was no such thing as load management back then, so the Bulls would have had to play their stars as much as it took to secure home court advantage because only 6 games separated the 8 playoff teams in the East by the time the regular season ended.


For the sake of this hypothetical projection, let's say Phil Jackson called a truce with Jerry Krause and agreed to come back for another year. Michael Jordan was somehow able to convince Scottie Pippen, Dennis Rodman, and all the role players to take 1-year deals. Now the Bulls have everything they need in place to try and become the first team since Bill Russell's Celtics to win 4 championships in a row. But there would be significant obstacles standing in their way, even in the East, because that conference still had the teams that made the road to their last championship difficult. In the end, they would run into a buzz saw in the Spurs and come up short. Here's how I see it playing out:

First of all, keep in mind that whatever the Bulls accomplish in this projection is under the assumption that the players' bodies would hold up long enough for them to go out and make it happen, which was far from a guarantee under the circumstances. The Bulls were worn out physically and mentally by 1999. The biggest thing working against them in this situation would be 302 games played in the previous 3 seasons. Exhaustion is often a major factor in dynasties falling off. There's also the fact that the 1998-99 season was a very condensed 50-game schedule, which is not good for old legs.

Here's a look at the star players for both teams and what they had going on........ 

Spurs
Tim Duncan: He was a monster in his 2nd year in the NBA. This a 23-year old pre-knee injury Tim Duncan we're talking about. He was fast, mobile, and athletic. Not to mention young and hungry. TD was a quiet assassin on offense and a terror on defense. He would have been too dominant, and wouldn't have been intimidated by Dennis Rodman's antics. TD put up double-doubles the first 2 times he faced The Worm in his career, with 19 points and 22 rebounds the first time, and then 14 and 12 the other time. With TD's improvement from his rookie season to Year 2, imagine how he would have feasted on a 38-year old Dennis Rodman.

Here's what former Bull and 3-time champion BJ Armstrong said about TD on ESPN's First Take leading up to the documentary:

"Technically speaking, Tim Duncan, to me, is a player that is really just probably as unique of a talent that I've seen in the NBA. And if you're going to have a player that's going to be able to counter a talent like Michael Jordan, who was almost like flawless technically in his game, Tim Duncan can do that because he could do things - not only offensively but defensively - to control the game."

David Robinson: He was in his 10th season and wanted to win a championship very badly. Athletic big men were the Bulls' kryptonite, so who would guard David Robinson? Granted, he wasn't the same guy that averaged 25 points and 11 rebounds in his first 7 seasons, but he was still an elite athlete at 33 years old. Also, by 1999 The Admiral appeared to finally be at peace with who he was and what he did so well. He was also noticeably playing with more fire and more of a sense of urgency.

Bulls
Michael Jordan: He was clearly slipping. From 1988-1997, in every year he played MJ led the NBA in offensive and total win shares, win shares per 48, offensive box plus/minus, total BPM, and value over replacement player. By every advanced statistical measure, MJ was the best player in basketball for a whole decade straight. He didn't lead any of those categories in the 1997-98 season, his last with the Bulls. His PER (25.2) and VORP (7.1) in that season were career-lows with the Bulls. MJ's raw numbers had also started to decline, and his shooting efficiency was dropping off. He wasn't terrible by any means, given the fact that he won his 5th MVP trophy, but he was no longer the clear-cut winner.

Fast forward a year and now Michael Jordan is 36 years old and the years have taken their toll. He seemed perfectly fine with playing 39 minutes per game in all 82 games in the previous season and then carrying his team in the playoffs by averaging 41.5 minutes per game at 35 years old. MJ was the best in the business at using his mind to push his body to places nobody thought it could ever reach. That's what gave him the strength to push through the food poisoning he played with in Game 5 of the 1997 NBA Finals. In a season that saw so many injuries, a 36-year old MJ coming off 3 straight championship runs would likely feel the physical effects of a challenge no human body was prepared to withstand. You couldn't help but wonder how much more his body could take at that level of play and the amount his psyche could handle. MJ also had the burden of being the world's most famous celebrity.

Scottie Pippen: He was never the same player after having his back surgery in the summer of 1998. At 33 years old, he was still a high-end starter, but not the difference maker he had been. The agile and athletic Scottie Pippen that we saw before the 1997-98 season was gone. It should also be noted that he never made another All-Star team after his foot surgery in 1997. These are facts that most people conveniently ignore when they just assume that a hypothetical Bulls team in 1999 would automatically win it all. All that's doing is minimizing how great Scottie was before the surgeries, acting like a lesser Scottie Pippen would still make them favorites in 1999. The lockout season might have helped him a little bit, but he only averaged 14.5 points per game as the Rockets' 3rd best player behind Hakeem Olajuwon and Charles Barkley. To Scottie's credit, he did play all 50 games that season. But again, he just wasn't the same player.

Dennis Rodman: He wasn't having the kind of impact he had in previous years. There were concerns that Dennis Rodman was disinterested, even at the end of the 1997-98 season. For that reason, along with him being 38 years old by the time the 1999 NBA Finals came around, I couldn't see him being able to guard Tim Duncan 1-on-1. The Worm was also playing a physical style that could only hold up for so long. He even started coming off the bench for the Bulls in the 1998 Eastern Conference Finals (except for Game 3), and did it through the Finals. After the 1997-98 season, The Worm only played 35 games over the next 2 seasons (with the Lakers and Mavericks) before retiring in 2000.


As for how the series would play out, I see the Spurs taking it in 6 games, 5 with a couple of lucky breaks. The difference in this series would have been the Twin Towers. Their size would pose some real issues for the Bulls, who had never faced an interior duo like that in the Michael Jordan Era. As great as MJ and Scottie Pippen were in big moments, David Robinson and Tim Duncan would have been too much for the Bulls. They would have destroyed the Bulls front line of Dennis Rodman, Luc Longley (if retained), and Bill Wennington. Say what you want about the Bulls having the better perimeter tandem and backcourt, but I believe Sean Elliott, Mario Elie, and Avery Johnson would have made enough contributions for the Spurs to pull out the win. I'm pretty sure they would get a lot of wide-open shots with the Bulls putting most of their energy into collapsing in the post.

On the defensive end is where you would see the true advantages for the Spurs. Their GOAT-level half-court defense would wreak all kinds of havoc on a Bulls team that operated exclusively in the half court. The Twin Towers would be clogging the paint and forcing the Bulls into shooting a lot of jumpers. They would also be killing the Bulls on the glass. The Spurs were the best defensive team in 1998-99 and had the NBA record for opponent field goal percentage (.4016), which still stands today. They were also top 5 in rebounding (No. 1 in defensive rebounding). Points would certainly be at a premium.

In my opinion, the key to beating that Bulls team would be to let Michael Jordan get his and lock everybody else down. With the Twin Towers shutting the paint down, MJ would just have to shoot jumpers until his arm fell off. Who would help him score? Scottie Pippen was a shell of himself by then. So was Dennis Rodman, but he was never much of a scorer, and he was disinterested in basketball. This series would resemble the early part of MJ's career, when it was him vs. everybody. He escaped Utah in '98 by the skin of his teeth and would have to play an even bigger role in '99 as the only elite player on the team. That's an awful lot to ask out of a 36-year old man who had played in 3 NBA Finals in the previous 3 seasons. 

A Spurs/Bulls series would have definitely been more competitive than the Spurs/Knicks series was, but again, I say the Spurs would take it in 6 games at most. Athletic big men were the Bulls' weakness, and the Spurs had 2 of them. David Robinson and Tim Duncan were just too good on the inside, and the Spurs had a nice mix of veterans. The wear and tear from 3 straight championship runs would have been a lot to overcome against a hungry Spurs team. Many of the Bulls players declined after their last championship season, some quite a bit. As great as Michael Jordan still was, especially in crunch time, I just don't see him and a Bulls team that's another year older beating an already-great-but-still-ascending Tim Duncan and a David Robinson who was still capable, with both of them co-anchoring a historic defense.

So many people to this day still sleep on the 1998-99 Spurs. In fact, they are one of the more underrated and forgotten great teams in NBA history. They tied with the Jazz for the NBA's best record (37-13) after a 6-8 start. The Spurs also had the best metrics of any team by a wide margin that season, including a league-leading scoring margin (+8.1) and defensive rating (95.0). They were a runaway train after getting off to that slow start. The Spurs closed out the regular season by winning 12 of their last 13 games, including 3 against the Blazers (their Western Conference Finals opponent) and the Jazz. Then they went 15-2 in the playoffs on the way to their first championship.

For the record, Dennis Rodman said in The Last Dance that the Bulls would have "easily" won their 4th straight championship. The way they won their last one in 1998 suggests otherwise. They got pushed to the limit by the Pacers and then got taken to 6 games by the Jazz for a 2nd straight year. Not to mention the Nets playing them tough in the first 2 games of the opening round of the playoffs. That team was on its last legs and barely won that championship, mostly on the strength of some clutch plays and bad calls. To me, when you barely win it's always a sign that your time is up.

I won't say that the Spurs would have been able to stop Michael Jordan, but they most certainly would have made him a less efficient player. They held the Knicks to 39.2% shooting and allowed 79.8 points in the NBA Finals over 5 games. The Bulls would have fared better, but it still would have been a struggle for them to score. The Spurs were basically a superior version of those 90's Knicks teams that gave the Bulls problems. They would have been the best defense the Jordan Bulls have faced. In this case, the 2nd best would be the 1992-93 Knicks, who held a younger and better MJ to the most inefficient series of his prime. The Spurs were a different animal altogether.

It really is too bad that this matchup never happened because it very well could have been among the highest rated NBA Finals series ever. I also know the Spurs would have been extremely fired up to face the Bulls. The Spurs winning that series would have also been a nice passing of the torch from Michael Jordan to Tim Duncan. What better way for TD to start his legacy off by beating the consensus GOAT? The media would have also naturally made a bunch of excuses for the Bulls, with the main excuse being it wasn't the same Bulls team. But it still would have robbed the Bulls of some of their mystique and further elevated TD and the Spurs.